Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s political future was in jeopardy this morning after it was revealed that her husband used her Commons expenses allowance to pay to watch pornographic films.

Richard Timney, who works as Ms Smith’s Commons adviser, used part of the Minister’s second-homes allowance to pay for the blue movies he watched on a subscription television channel.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Now, I can understand the reason why Richard Timney watched porn movies in April: I would imagine that they performed the function of allowing him to get it up in order to do his yearly duty with his god-awful, ugly, old boot of a wife.

The relationship between Ms Smith and her husband was said by Government insiders to be ‘very difficult,’ but stressed that the couple were still together.

It is understood that Mr Timney had been watching explicit adult movies on channels broadcast on the Virgin Media cable TV service.

Ms Smith was said to be 'mortified' today after she was forced to offer a humiliating apology over the expenses claim.

The Home Secretary said she 'mistakenly' submitted an expenses claim which included five pay-per-view films, including two adult movies which were viewed at her family home in her Redditch constituency.

A friend said the Home Secretary knew there was 'no excuse' for the error but added: 'To say she's angry with her husband is an understatement.'Jacqui was not there when these films were watched.

'She's furious and mortified.'

Ms Smith said in a statement: 'I am sorry that in claiming for my internet connection, I mistakenly claimed for a television package alongside it.

But what I do not understand is why we are paying for Jacqui Smith's home internet connection, nor why it is apparently costing her some £67 per month.

'As soon as the matter was brought to my attention, I took immediate steps to contact the relevant parliamentary authorities and rectify the situation.

'All money claimed for the television package will be paid back in full.'

You will be paying back the television package for the entire time that you have been claiming it, will you? How long have you been watching movies paid for by the taxpayer? How long has the taxpayer been paying for your television extras? And will you be paying back every single penny of it, you thieving harpy? I fucking hope so.

Seriously, I can actually see how this might, just possibly, be a mistake. But the only reason that this could have happened is because we allow MPs these ridiculous perks. There is absolutely no reason, at all, why we should pay for Jacqui Smith's home internet connection—absolutely none. And I'd love to know—are we also paying for her sister's internet connection?

Oh, and lest we forget...

Just three months ago, The Mail on Sunday revealed that Mr Timney – who is paid £40,000 of public money a year as Ms Smith’s to run her Redditch constituency office – was behind a letter-writing campaign defending the Government in her local paper.

Yes, that's right folks: we also pay her husband £40,000 a year so that Richard can be Jacqui's parliamentary advisor. And we are asked to take it on faith that he is doing his job even though their relationship is said to be "very difficult".

Let us just look at this objectively. Jacqui Smith is a minister, and so pulling in a salary of about £120,000£141,866; she is also paying her husband a further £40,000: this is a grand total of £160,000 £181,000 in salaries alone.

On top of that, Jacqui Smith claimed £152,683 in expenses last year; minus her husband's £40,000, that is an extra £113,000. Some £24,000 a year, as we know, goes to pay the mortgage on her Redditch "second home" (even though it has been established that she spends most of her time there, and not in her sister's flat).

So the obvious question—and it actually applies to all MPs—what the fuck is she actually spending her salary on? She isn't, as most of us do, using it to pay her bills, because we pay those. So, where the fuck is that, frankly, huge sum of money going, exactly?

After all, the Smith household is pulling in a combined salary of over six and a half seven times the median wage and yet the taxpayer is also stumping up for all of her bills. So, what the fuck does she spend it on?

I am fed to the back teeth of paying for these dishonest bastards: I am tired of them preaching at me whilst they have their hands in our fucking till; I am fucking tired of documenting their lies and their thieving and their incompetence.

Why do we put up with it? And is it really true that the majority of the people in this country just don't care? How can that be the case?

The only way to stop these cunts from constantly picking our pockets is to prosecute them: as I have said before, we should bring a private prosecution against one or two of them—Jacqui would be an excellent target—and jail them for fraud.

Because—and I want to be absolutely clear about this—it is fraud: it is not a "mistake", it is not "minor infraction", it is not a "misreading of the rules". It. Is. Fraud. And they should be prosecuted as such.

As pater Devil used to say, it's the only thing these teddy-boys understand.

32 comments:

I thought it must be Wednesday when I saw this story on Ceefax this morning. We seem to be paying for everything for these ministers and other MPs, simple things that we have to pay for ourselves. I cannot set my Sky payments against tax. they have nothing to do with my work whatsoever. I have to pay. why do we subsidise these thieving bastards? And that smug bastard claiming the most expenses is the limit. Cohen. He says he was told just to "go for it" and he did. They are all venal, corrupt, thieving, mercenary bastards with zero regards for taxpayers and voters.

It isn't fraud because they write the law about fraud and they are exempt, which is why you can't prosecute them. At the risk of darkening your mood, I'd point out what you already know--that around eight out of every ten people with a vote did not vote for them. Don't look for that in the papers or the mainstream media, because they are full of their relatives and friends. Oh, and don't point out the nonsense of most of their core beliefs, or they'll ignore you or worse.

I won't let myself despair, but what on earth is it going to take to put a stop to this?

That does seem rather expensive; I pay only £24 for unlimited (terms and conditions apply) broadband. I suppose that if one is making as much money as MPs do then that monthly rate probably seems like a trivial expense.

So what she gets totals £294,549 & that isn't a story. Her hubby put £10 worth of porn on the wrong credit card & it is. This says a lot about our MSM.

Actually I wouldn't mind them getting that if they were doing a good job. If all MPS got a 100 grand bonus every year that government spending dropped or we reached average world growth (5%) I suspect it would concentrate minds wonderfully.

"If all MPS got a 100 grand bonus every year that government spending dropped or we reached average world growth (5%) I suspect it would concentrate minds wonderfully."

I'm sure that it would. Except, of course, if we only made 2.5% growth, then they'd simply change the rules, say that they have, at least, reached constant positive growth and that it is not their fault that the businesses of Britain have not been good enough to grow by 5%, and they'd just award themselves bonuses anyway.

If you are suspected of defrauding benefits, even by mistake, the local authority will call you in for a taped 'interview under caution' with a full reading of your rights beforehand.

Merely stating that it was an honest mistake, even if 100% true, is not in itself a guarantee of immunity from prosecution.

I know this as I've helped two such people who have gone through this. They suffered weeks of tear-filled fear and sleepless nights, simply for not understanding the incredibly complicated benefits system.

Why not a chat to ascertain the situation, and probably solve it easily before such draconian measures? Because the local authorities are paid a fee by government for each 'interview' they conduct.

If it was two vacuous, Tarrantino style gore fests, the press wouldn't give a shit. I mean, Margaret Beckett claimed hundreds of thousands to upgrade her kitchen. Two pornos are probably less than a tenner - yet the press, as a whole, seem more outraged by this.

neil craig said: "Actually I wouldn't mind them getting that if they were doing a good job. If all MPS got a 100 grand bonus every year that government spending dropped or we reached average world growth (5%) I suspect it would concentrate minds wonderfully."

Any measure can be fiddled. As GDP has been for the last decade.

The best suggestion I've seen so far is to pay them £200,000 a year with no expenses (Plus more for being a Minister, head of Committee, PM etc.) with a means for the constituency to force a by-election if enough people demand one. If MPs then choose to feather their own nest they won't be able to afford office staff. If they aren't doing a good job the people can then have a by-election and let someone else have a go.

So what she gets totals £294,549 & that isn't a story. Her hubby put £10 worth of porn on the wrong credit card & it is.

Hits the nail on the head. These expenses are payment in kind. They're perks. The issue isn't what they're used for. If you think MPs are paid too much for what they do- fine, attack that, go ahead. But the issue of whether it's a money payment or an indirect perks payment is completely irrelevant, unless you're a stern moralist tittillated by the mention of adult movies.

What a pile of crap, in other words. It's 60 quid for the internet package, and a whole 10 quid for the movies. And everyone goes apopleptic because of our glorious methodist moral heritage. Supporting such an MSM moral crusade is just playing into their hands. If you want their pay cut, fine, have a go at them for being overpaid.

But a tenner on a couple of movies? Give me a fucking break. I've never met anyone who didn't seek to maximise expenses when they are in a position to claim them, because everybody in the world treats expenses as a wages top up, because they are.

We ought to be pleased that a glimmer of humanity has shown through from these people; that a couple sat down and watched a fruity movie together. Instead we lapse into a wearying, inevitable, national tirade in pursuit of a puritanical public morality that hardly anyone believes in in private. It's that public morality that needs abolishing, not a poxy tenner on an expenses bill.

Ignore the polls because they are crooked .For example Kellner writes for the Guardian.I'd put them about 60 points behind.I don't know anyone who's going to vote Labour.It could be the biggest electoral defeat in Parliamentary history.Their in their bunker believe me.If they do get in again they will be hiding behind barbed wire because they will have to.

I disagree. The £10 on blue movies is just the final insult. We can take Jacqui pretending her sister's boxroom is her main residence so she can coin it in on her four bedroom detached "second home"; we can take Jacqui giving her old man a £40 grand non job so he can write bogus letters to the local press on her behalf. But the bastards are so fucking bent that they cannot even be arsed to pay for their own porn.

This tax eating bastard sits in the house we bought him, with a box of tissues we bought him, watching the cable TV we bought him, and it seems never to have even crossed his mind that he should use even £10 of the salary we pay him to buy his own fucking porn. The contempt these monsters have for us is total, and this is just the proof.

Mr Brown says that Ms Smith is doing a good job and after all she has paid the money back. Well there are a number of crooks doing a good job of stealing etc so on Mr Browns conditions if they pay back the money they stole then its OK, what morals !! Then there are the bankers perhaps Mr Brown will get them to pay back all the money they have hived away in the last few years and it will be all OK !!

No Ian B/Richard Timney, pretending to be Hazel Blears is just part of the New Labour blame-avoidance routine. You can't prove you're not RT. Besides you seem to know far too much about the Smith/Timney credit card arrangements...

As for Ms Smith - this is a rare event where it really would be cheaper for the taxpayers to keep someone in prison - perhaps she could have a comfy cell as a grace and favour apartment rather than that sleazy South London boxroom. As she's in charge of prisons Home Secretary she should be able to make the arrangements without involving the courts.

The invoice shows that fat Jacqui's hubbie was watching porn on the 1st and 6th of April 2008. The 6th was a Sunday and Parliament was in recess. Jacqui had buggered off at midday on the 2nd according to the Home Office intranet site. So where was se?